COMPENSATION LAW

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 54, Issue 2, 13 October 1933, Page 2

COMPENSATION LAW

IMPORTANT POINT RAISED. CO-OPERATIVE PARTIES AND THE CROWN. i (Per Press Association). AVELLINGTON, October 12. . Argument was begun in the Court of Appeal this afternoon in a case in winch Minnie Solomon, of Tiinaru, a widow, is appellant and the Crown respondent. Appellant's husband was killed by an accident at the Waitaki hydro-electrio works on May 20, 1932, and the widow instituted proceedings, claiming £2OOO damages, alleging that the accident was due to negligence on the part of one Rawson, a fellow worker, who was one of a party to winch deceased belonged. Solomon was working with a'number of others at the bottom of a deep excavation, his work being to fill trucks with spoil. These trucks were hauled up a steep face, on top of which Rawson and another Avould seize them as they arrived, one pushing them further on to the tiphead while the other secured an empty truck to the cable. On the occasion in question a truck was not properly secured, with, the result that ft rolled down the incline and, coining into contact with Solomon, killed him instantaneously. ■ ''■•;. The claim was heard before Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury in February, when the jury found that the accident was due to Hansom's negligence and awarded £I4OO damages, £9OO for the widow and £SOO for a child. Counsel for the Crown raised two nonsuit points:—(l) That there was.no evidence of negligence and (2) That the party of co-operative workers to which deceased and Rawson belonged were independent contractors and, there being no contract of service, there. was no cause of action and the Crown was not liable.

The Judge held, that there was evidence on which the jury could. find negligence but on' the second point he agreed with the contentions of the Crown that the party to which deceased belonged was an independent contractor and hence the verdict could not stand. From this decision the widow appealed. ' On the bench to : day were the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and Justices MacGregor, Ostler and Smith:'. Mr P. J. O'Regan, counsel for appellant, said that if the Court took the view that Solomon and Rawson were independent contractors that would be the end of the matter; but he submitted that they were purely direct servants of the Crown. He.contended that the case upon which 'the Jxldge in the Court below had placed such reliance was not applicable by reason of different circumstances which existed in this^case. The point which is arousing interest in this case is whether persons who work under co-operative contracts with the Crown, as were Solomon and Rawson, are servants of the Crown entitled to benefits as such Or are independent contractors. The Court adjourned liritil to-mor-row.